This allows having multiple separate lockfiles for a single
project, which can be useful for testing against different versions of
nixpkgs; it also allows tracking custom input overrides for remote
flakes without requiring local clones of these flakes.
For example, if I want to build Nix against my locally pinned nixpkgs,
and have a lock file tracking this override independently of future
updates to said nixpkgs:
nix flake lock --output-lock-file /tmp/nix-flake.lock --override-input nixpkgs flake:nixpkgs
nix build --reference-lock-file /tmp/nix-flake.lock
Co-Authored-By: Will Fancher <elvishjerricco@gmail.com>
It would be incorrect to say that the `sourceInfo` has an `outPath`
that isn't the root. `sourceInfo` is about the root, whereas only
the flake may not be about the root. Thanks Eelco for pointing that
out.
We are looking for *$ because it indicate that it was constructed with a new but
not release. De-referencing shallow copy so deleting as whole might create
dangling pointer that's why we move it so we delete a empty containers + the
nice perf boost.
Nixpkgs on aarch64-linux is currently stuck on GCC 9
(https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/208412) and using gcc11Stdenv
doesn't work either.
So use c++2a instead of c++20 for now. Unfortunately this means we
can't use some C++20 features for now (like std::span).
XDG Base Directory is a standard for locations for storing various
files. Nix has a few files which seem to fit in the standard, but
currently use a custom location directly in the user's ~, polluting
it:
- ~/.nix-profile
- ~/.nix-defexpr
- ~/.nix-channels
This commit adds a config option (use-xdg-base-directories) to follow
the XDG spec and instead use the following locations:
- $XDG_STATE_HOME/nix/profile
- $XDG_STATE_HOME/nix/defexpr
- $XDG_STATE_HOME/nix/channels
If $XDG_STATE_HOME is not set, it is assumed to be ~/.local/state.
Co-authored-by: Théophane Hufschmitt <7226587+thufschmitt@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Tim Fenney <kodekata@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: pasqui23 <pasqui23@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Artturin <Artturin@artturin.com>
Co-authored-by: John Ericson <Ericson2314@Yahoo.com>
With the switch to C++20, the rules became more strict, and we can no
longer initialize base classes. Make them comments instead.
(BTW
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p2287r1.html
this offers some new syntax for this use-case. Hopefully this will be
adopted and we can eventually use it.)
